Shut up about Barclay Perkins

Tuesday, 3 March 2015

Kieninger ends with an overview of the different German fermentation systems in use at the time.

It’s pretty clear where his preferences lie. Again there’s not a single mention of beer flavour in his discussion.

“Finally, I wish to discuss the types of fermentation vessels which may be used in breweries in the future. There are three main combinations of fermentation and maturation vessels in use at present.

(a) The green beer may be fermented in cylindro-conical vessels and then matured in horizontal tanks. This method has the disadvantage that the yeast must be removed from the lager tank manually and is likely to be avoided in future developments.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

Even in the most old-fashioned method he describes the primary fermentation is performed in conicals. He only really traditional bit is lagering in horizontal tanks. His dislike of them seems purely based on having to clean them out by hand.

This sounds even worse:

“(b) A second possibility is to use cylindro-conical vessels for main fermentation and then to pump the beer into vertical outdoor tanks, using a plate cooler to lower the temperature.

The removal of yeast from the outdoor tank is also difficult, especially if the vessel has a diameter greater than 6 m. The vessels are cheap, however, and as a result they are found in many breweries, usually with centrifuges before the plate cooler.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

It’s huge tanks like these that make some modern breweries look like a chemical works. Or some post-modernist building where all the guts are on the outside.

Finally, Kieninger’s favourite:

“(c) The problems of handling yeast in large tanks has led to a consideration of fermentation and maturation in a single vessel. One brewery in Italy uses this so-called 'unitank method". This brewery is not using flotation but filters the wort before fermentation by use of a kteselguhr filter. The primary fermentation is completed after 7 days at a temperature of 9°C, 7 days are needed to reduce the content of the a-acetolactate formed and after a further 7 days stabilization at 0°C the beer is filtered and bottled. The average yeast concentration before filtration is 4 million cells per ml compared to a concentration of only 0.5 million cells per ml for the classical procedure of stabilization in horizontal cylindrical vessels. Since one brew occupies a vessel for 3 weeks one must ask if the financial burden which arises from the high costs of cylindro-conical tanks compared to separate fermentation and lagering vessels is justified. The fact that removal of yeast from the cylindro-conical tanks is much easier than from horizontal or vertical lager tanks with a flat bottom is a major reason for the method being adopted.

Extensive trials in our Institute showed that fermentation at temperatures of 15-18°C altered the original character of the lager beer, even after addition of Krausen during secondary fermentation and only at temperatures of 12°C and below was no distinct effect found. We think it advisable, therefore, that the temperature of primary fermentation should not exceed 9°C during the first 3 days but during the last stages of primary fermentation the temperatures may rise to 14-I6°C to reduce the content of diketones and precursors. After this time the yeast is removed and the beer is carbonated and stabilized at 0°C in the same vessel. The procedure described requires 3 weeks production time which can be carried out on a weekly programme. A better foam stability has been found with longer maturation time.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

I believe the unitank system is what industrial Lager breweries use today. And I think the temperature of primary fermentation isn’t kept below 9º C, but is more like the 15-18°C than damages the character of Lager. Oh look, there’s a sort of mention of beer flavour. At just three weeks from mash to bottling, there’s not really any lagering going on.

Kieninger does have reservations about conicals:

“Summarizing these points the question arises whether the cylindro-conical tank can really be the universal vessel for beer production in the future. It is certainly possible to separate the cold break by filling the vessels at such a speed that the sludge sediments before the yeast has overcome its 8 hour lag-phase. This allows sufficient separation of cold sludge for the fermentative activity of the yeast not to be affected. Collection of carbon dioxide and removal of yeast is possible without manual work and there are no problems with stabilization and carbonation. The only disadvantage is the larger volume required for the foam head when using higher temperatures. Our experience has shown that a vessel with a height of 25 m needs 5-6 m for the foam head and this means that a vessel, depending on the temperature of fermentation, may be filled only to two-thirds of its volume. It seems that in the future, therefore, there will be a trend in many continental breweries to ferment and mature the beer in one vessel by a batch procedure.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

Though the ease of removing yeast and collecting CO2 outweigh not being able to fill the conicals to the top when fermenting Lager warmer than was traditional.

His prediction about single-vessel fermentation systems did indeed become true. In fact I think that’s also the way most new small breweries operate in the US.

Monday, 2 March 2015

This is the chapter I’ve been leading up to. A very detailed account of how to – and how not to – handle cask beer in the pub.

It’s one of the most useful, and fascinating, chapters I’ve ever come across. I’m not joking. It’s answered one question that’s been knocking around in my head for several decades. But that bit will come in a later post.

This is the curse of the cask brewer:

“Every brewer should realise that his duties do not end within the walls of the brewery. A brewer should take every opportunity of visiting his firm's licensed houses, in order to be fully acquainted with the conditions under which his beers are managed in the cellars. By so doing, Providing he keeps careful record of the details applying to each place, he will be able to arrange his own cellar temperatures to better advantage. He will have obtained a fair idea of the temperatures to which beers will be subjected after they have left the brewery. It is quite possible, too, with his more expert and intimate knowledge of beer, that he may be able to give the tenant or manager some beneficial advice. At the same time, he can point out any defects in the cellar which require attention. He will undoubtedly find some tenants rather averse from any change in their usual methods of cellar management. The fact that a certain routine has given good results for a long period is no reason for not pointing out the possible ill results of certain actions which entail risks. With the knowledge thus acquired from various cellars, a brewer should be able to deal with any trouble which might develop with his beers in cellar.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 249.

The brewer of bottled or keg beer has far less to worry about when he waves the fruit of his labour goodbye. Broken packaging or roasting in the sun for a few days aside, there’s not a huge amount of harm that can befall such beer. It should survive even sloppy handling in drinkable condition. MNo such luck with cask.

Which means a cask brewer has to take an interest in – and possibly worry about – what goes on in a pub cellar. And in the days when most pubs were tied, breweries did have a say in cellar design. Especially with new pubs.

And cellars and their design are where we start.

“Cellars
In chapter 2 we mentioned that it was necessary for architects who designed breweries to have considerable knowledge of brewing. We are now going to express the opinion that it is of equal importance that those who plan out licensed houses should have sufficient knowledge of the management of beer to enable them fully to appreciate the importance of the cellar. The cellar is really the heart of any place where the trade depends upon the sale of beer. It is throwing away money to construct a palatial building in order to attract trade, if the cellar is so ill designed that it is impossible to sell beer in anything approaching a satisfactory condition. The house will inevitably become a ‘white elephant' on account of its bad reputation so far as beer is concerned. Unfortunately, the brewer is too often blamed for trouble with the beers, when all the time it is due to circumstances over which he has little or no control. We do not say that these poor conditions apply so much to cellars in town houses as to those in the country. Nevertheless, possibly owing to space being valuable in towns, we have often found cellars in town houses ridiculously small in proportion to the trade which the house should do. This defect is a serious one, because it entails frequent opening of the cellar doors, with destruction of its normal temperature. These changes in temperature, especially during extreme summer heat or winter cold, are liable to have serious effects upon the beers. Besides, lack of space never gives the beers a chance to settle down. Thick and unpalatable drinks become the rule and not the exception. With good reason, therefore, we demand a cellar which is large enough. If the cellar is found to be too spacious, part of it can always be screened off. But if it is too small, it is difficult to enlarge.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 249 - 250.

“Thick and unpalatable drinks” – sounds like Craft Keg or that unfined nonsense. Then again, isn’t the whole point of these things that they look different? So fashion victims can easily spot them. Who would be interested in unfined beer if it looked just as clear in the glass as fined beer?

I’d never thought about the bad effects of too small a cellar. I guess for deliveries cellar doors are open a fair time. But does it really have such an impact on the temperature inside?

It seems out in the countryside cellars were even worse than the town:

“As regards cellars in country houses, the less said about some of them the better. We have come across many which are quite unfit for the storage of beer. In some instances, they are simply a draughty passage between two compartments in the house; in others, a lean-to shed on one side of the building—even on the south side of it, so that at midday during the summer it resembles an oven. In many cases no attempt has been made to sink the cellar below ordinary floor level. Such sinking is essential if any degree of uniformity in temperature is to be obtained. Very often, when the licensed house is some distance from the brewery, deliveries of beer are only made fortnightly. In such cases, part only of the consignment can be cellared. The remainder finds its way into any vacant shed or stable, where it is left to take its chance, and is lost sight of until required. It is then transferred to the cellar, almost at the last moment before it has to be drawn on. During the winter, the beer becomes thoroughly chilled and takes a considerable time to recover. On the other hand, the authors have been urgently summoned during the heat of summer for assistance, to find the cask standing on end in some terribly hot outhouse, the heads bulging and straining under heavy internal pressure of gases, and threatening at any moment to burst. With room available for a larger cellar, as is generally the case in the country, there can be no excuse for such conditions. If the cellar is too small and cannot be enlarged, however, more frequent delivery of beer should be insisted upon.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 250.

They all sound like pretty dreadful places to store beer. Let alone cask beer. 19h-century Bass, of course, could handle being exposed to the elements. Lesser beers, I guess not. That paragraph certainly makes me look at the quaint country pubs of old in a slightly different light. The beer must have often been dreadful, especially in the summer. Sounds like a recipe for vinegar.

This all much more complicated than you might imagine. You had to use the right materials when building a cellar.

“Apart from the position and the size of a cellar, planning and construction are of the utmost importance. Adequate ventilation is essential, but it must not involve draughts. Draughts are very detrimental to the condition and often the fining of beers. On that account, we do not favour open cellar flaps made of iron grating, but prefer wooden ones, even if it means curtailment of a certain amount of light. But as underground cellars generally need artificial light in any case, the defect is a minor one. For cleanliness, we strongly advise a floor covered with asphalt, with adequate fall to a drain or sump. The fall ensures that any beer which may be spilled runs away immediately, thus obviating an accumulation of beer which rapidly turns acid.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

What’s the difference between ventilation but not draught? Whether you’re sitting in its direct path, would be my personal definition. Why was a draught bad for fining?

Café Belgique in Amsterdam has an earth floor, I seem to recall. Probably the worst possible option for cask.

Oh right, I see Jeffery agrees with me:

“Where a sump is necessary in the absence of a drain, it should be cleaned out every day without fail. From the point of view of an even temperature an earth floor seems more suitable for beers than any type of more up-to-date construction, but has the disadvantage of getting foul and acid, especially during the summer, and on that account is undesirable.

Walls and roof faced with white glazed tiles form the ideal so far as cleanliness is concerned. If tiles are found too expensive, bricks may be substituted provided they have a hard smooth surface which will not form a receptacle for mould spores. The bricks can be limewashed periodically, and the cellar so kept sweet and clean.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

Tiles are always the best option, hygiene-wise. I’d have our whole house tiled, walls, floors, ceilings, if Dolores would let me. We’d never have to decorate again. Not that I do much. Usually it’s Dolores who gets out the paintbrush when I’ve gadded off somewhere.

One final word of warning:

“A great mistake is sometimes made in providing a roof which is too low. Every man needs sufficient height in which to move if he is to do his work properly. A manager or tenant will not be encouraged to visit his cellar more often than he is absolutely obliged to, if he finds he has limited space in any direction.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

The author should see the one in Café Belgique. The deepest parts aren’t tall enough to stand up in. And the shallow bits aren’t much more than a metre. And it’s only about 15 square metres in area.

Temperatures and stillage next. You’ll have to wait a while for the really fun bits.

Sunday, 1 March 2015

What’s the best fermentation system? Who hasn’t asked themselves that while soaking in the bath or bobbing along to work on the bus, some grey winters day?

You’re in luck, because Kieninger is going to tell us. Or at least give us his opinion. He worked at Weihenstephan, so he must be right, musn’t he?

“Table XII also shows the most simple and effective method for the fermentation and maturation of lager beers of high quality in the light of modern knowledge. Primary fermentation is carried out in closed vessels, so that it is possible to collect the carbon dioxide and any required temperature may be applied. After reduction of diacetyl the green beer is cooled by plate coolers to a temperature of 0°C and after remaining at this temperature for 2-3 weeks for stabilization it is carbonated and filtered. The only analytical controls required are diacetyl and carbon dioxide and the carbon dioxide content may be controlled by in-line instrumentation.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 76.

Lager in just 28 days. I’m not sure he’s convinced me about that. I’m sure it’s a cost-efficient way of brewing. But what about the flavour of the beer? That doesn’t get a look in. Notice that it’s not even taken into consideration.

The best Lagers I’ve had I mostly knew were open-fermented, lagered for months rather than weeks and were naturally carbonated.

I’m going to repeat that table, because it’s a while since the last post in this series:

“Fig. 2 illustrates the relationship between the time necessary to reduce diacetyl content to a value of 0.1 mg/litre and maturation temperature. At a temperature of 30°C, 48 hours are sufficient to reduce the diacetyl content to <0.1 mg/litre without addition of Kräusen but, at 8.5°C, eighteen days are necessary to reduce the diacetyl content to the same value. The addition of Kräusen also allows a reduction of diacetyl at higher temperatures, but additional 2-acetolactate is formed during secondary fermentation, so that a new time-consuming reduction phase is necessary.”

Oh, I get it. You can break down diacetyl at a higher temperature if you kräusen, the fermentation of the kräusen creates more diacetyl. And that also needs to be broken down. Sounds like you need to add more kräusen then. Only joking. But what is he recommending ? I’m confused.

“The development of isoamyl alcohol during primary fermentation at different temperatures with and without pressure is shown in Fig. 3. Isoamyl alcohol content increases

with increasing temperature but the use of pressure results in a decrease of about 5 % at any given temperature.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

This one has totally lost me. Be glad for an explanation by any brewing technicians out there.

Just looked up isoamyl alcohol on this wonderful new thing they have called the internet. A higher alcohol . . . . that tastes like banana. I get why Kieninger is so interested in it, being a brewer of Weissbier.

Saturday, 28 February 2015

This is such fun. And just wait until we get to the next chapter which deals with handling cask beer in the pub. That’s a real eye-opener.

Let’s get started.

“Fining
The composition of finings has already been described, also reason why they are used. Their aim is to effect as rapidly as possible the condition of clarity which, provided the beer has been properly brewed, would doubtless have resulted spontaneously in the long run. It remains now to deal with the quantity of finings which should be used, and the best time at which to use it.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 246.

So they are a shortcut to clarity, really. Stock Pale Ales in the 19th century weren’t usually fined but expected to drop crystal clear during the long maturation process. I wish some modern brewers would take note that unfined doesn’t mean that the beer has to look like mud in the glass.

This is an interesting point:

“It is hardly necessary to point out that the addition of finings, besides increasing the sludge and bottoms, takes something out of the beer and decreases the palate-fullness. Wherever possible, especially in the case of stock ales and beers for bottling, the use of finings should be dispensed with. Where necessary, as is always the case with running ales, the least possible quantity should be used which is compatible with satisfactory results. One pint of well-made finings per barrel should be the maximum quantity used for running beers, one and a half pints for pale ales, where the finings are called upon to do more work on account of the large amount of hops present in the cask. Even these quantities may be reduced where the finings are made from the best Saigon leaf. This leaf undoubtedly has very strong fining powers. Curiously enough, these finings are rather deceptive in appearance. They seem to be weak and unduly thin. The appearance is deceptive, however, and a proof that apparent strength as revealed by viscosity is not always reliable.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 247.

So maybe the anti-finings brigade do have a point. Finings thin a beer out. Still doesn’t mean I want to drink a pint of sludge, though.

The large amount of hops in Pale Ales would be the dry hops. Though surely a running Bitter would also be dry hopped. He seems to be assuming that running beers were always Mild, which wasn’t usually dry hopped.

Now the tricky question or when to add finings:

“The question of when most suitably to add finings is a debatable one. At one time opinion was in favour of fining in the houses, but with the quicker deliveries that are now possible with modern transport, the major objection to fining in the brewery is removed. If finings are added just prior to despatch from the brewery, the beer will fine satisfactorily within a few hours of its receipt at the cellar of the house. When fining in the houses was the rule, it was sometimes found that better fining was achieved when both beers and finings had been delivered together and stored in the same cellar not less than 24 hours previous to the beer being fined down. Both beers and finings had become acclimatized to the surrounding temperatures, and the action of the finings was more regular and efficient than was the case when the beers were fined down at the brewery. Few breweries now fine in the houses, however.

The advantage of fining at the brewery lies in the knowledge that the job has been done properly. Also, a certain quantity of beer is saved per cask, which in some breweries means quite a large barrelage per annum. Against this might be placed the poor results which could be obtained due to exposure of the fined beer to many variations in temperature in the course of delivery.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 247.

So fining had first mostly been done in pubs, but had shifted to the brewery. I’m surprised at fining only taking a few hours after delivery. I’d have thought 24 hours was more like it. Though I know that the Nottingham breweries’ beer used to drop bright pretty quickly.

I can understand why brewers wanted to do the fining themselves. They had more control over what went on and removed a possibility of the landlord cocking it up. You’ll have noticed that the author clearly doesn’t trust publicans to handle beer properly.

There were times when fining needed to be done earlier, even before racking:

“Sometimes one hears of fining taking place in the racking back. It is a practice of which we are not in favour unless the fermentation has been very sluggish, and the emission of yeast unsatisfactory. Of course, if the beer is yeast-bitten, and it is essential to avoid the introduction to the cask of a large amount of undesirable sludge and sediment, part fining in the racking square is not only advisable, but necessary.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 247 - 248.

Only to be done when the fermentation hadn’t gone well and the beer still contained large amounts of yeast.

Next time it gets really exciting when we learn what went on in the pub.

Friday, 27 February 2015

You know what to expect by now. Numbers. Lots and lots of numbers and bugger all words. I’m saving up the words for people who pay me for them.

Let’s start with the raw numbers before I waste too many words on you.

Materials used in brewing in the USA 1955 - 1975
(lbs)

Year

Production
(barrels)

Malt

Corn and corn
products

Rice

Wheat

Barley

Sorghum grains and sorghum
products

Soybeans and
soybean prods.

sugar and syrups

1955

89,791,154

2,627,010,323

913,693,701

375,111,692

5,423,575

357,920

—

1,601,610

108,604,325

1956

90,697,911

2,650,652,911

871,955,351

424,954,817

3,679,525

10,000

38,700

1,181,776

109,404,864

1957

89,881,935

2,617,645,452

944,065,897

354,691,869

2,220,600

—

1,300

1,056,631

101,768,983

1958

89,010,812

2,577,543,842

954,414,553

336,354,124

1,971,900

495,000

649,000

1,143,739

97,209,348

1959

90,973,768

2,613,176,446

1,012,356,240

330,960,223

1,414,500

—

173,700

1,309,782

93,312,135

1960

94,547,867

2,697,409,939

1,058,989,007

351,812,764

1,426,000

—

45,000

1,419,098

98,684,775

1961

93,496,452

2,657,456,124

1,038,015,118

345,488,387

1,297,800

739

15,200

1,402,881

102,447,112

1962

96,417,543

2,715,251,671

1,075,306,335

337,923,616

1,206,000

—

60,340

1,526,045

121,331,649

1963

97,961,421

2,745,427,657

1,159,394,969

295,876,926

605,800

9,600

5,300

1,545,061

115,964,649

1964

103,017,915

2,885,121,764

1,265,020,486

273,811,073

575,600

—

3,218,132

1,618,204

106,371,666

1965

108,015,217

3,015,521,588

1,325,891,671

311,082,178

514,500

—

3,321,415

1,639,433

97,422,892

1966

109,736,341

3,071,600,745

1,316,086,216

334,865,023

481,365

—

—

1,618,239

98,792,117

1967

116,564,350

3,270,980,966

1,375,625,956

379,100,298

403,850

—

12,169,766

1,656,090

101,579,961

1968

117,523,511

3,309,955,668

1,302,371,115

394,510,574

332,600

1,600

41,452,889

1,761,403

120,504,135

1969

122,657,497

3,432,352,177

1,334,548,982

413,854,584

278,800

65,800

43,538,850

1,732,345

142,879,875

1970

134,653,881

3,721,405,457

1,448,830,267

506,065,825

229,200

2,055,860

15,027,460

1,736,287

202,416,492

1971

134,091,661

3,678,737,262

1,463,110,324

501,336,677

189,375

93,580

999,050

2,211,808

208,959,625

1972

140,326,680

3,853,687,171

1,518,935,036

536,974,228

158,800

79,560

778,270

1,839,278

199,423,919

1973

143,013,573

3,898,435,622

1,467,331,844

558,777,431

124,165

87,830

—

1,844,900

267,265,264

1974

153,053,027

4,172,512,952

1,518,206,361

593,190,144

—

52,944

—

1,578,736

310,933,052

1975

157,870,017

4,224,756,179

1,618,954,486

379,381,639

—

1,791,400

—

1,522,377

393,453,003

Source:

Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"

Obviously they’re much easier to understand expressed as percentages:

Materials used in brewing in the USA 1955 - 1975
(%)

Year

Malt

Corn and corn
products

Rice

Wheat

Barley

Sorghum grains and sorghum
products

Soybeans and
soybean prods.

sugar and syrups

1955

65.16%

22.66%

9.30%

0.13%

0.01%

0.04%

2.69%

1956

65.26%

21.47%

10.46%

0.09%

0.00025%

0.00095%

0.03%

2.69%

1957

65.09%

23.48%

8.82%

0.06%

0.00003%

0.03%

2.53%

1958

64.93%

24.04%

8.47%

0.05%

0.01%

0.02%

0.03%

2.45%

1959

64.48%

24.98%

8.17%

0.03%

0.00%

0.03%

2.30%

1960

64.07%

25.16%

8.36%

0.03%

0.00%

0.03%

2.34%

1961

64.09%

25.04%

8.33%

0.03%

0.00002%

0.00%

0.03%

2.47%

1962

63.85%

25.29%

7.95%

0.03%

0.00%

0.04%

2.85%

1963

63.57%

26.85%

6.85%

0.01%

0.00022%

0.00%

0.04%

2.69%

1964

63.61%

27.89%

6.04%

0.01%

0.07%

0.04%

2.35%

1965

63.41%

27.88%

6.54%

0.01%

0.07%

0.03%

2.05%

1966

63.68%

27.29%

6.94%

0.01%

0.03%

2.05%

1967

63.62%

26.76%

7.37%

0.01%

0.24%

0.03%

1.98%

1968

64.01%

25.19%

7.63%

0.01%

0.00003%

0.80%

0.03%

2.33%

1969

63.93%

24.86%

7.71%

0.01%

0.00123%

0.81%

0.03%

2.66%

1970

63.10%

24.57%

8.58%

0.004%

0.03%

0.25%

0.03%

3.43%

1971

62.82%

24.99%

8.56%

0.003%

0.00160%

0.02%

0.04%

3.57%

1972

63.05%

24.85%

8.79%

0.003%

0.00130%

0.01%

0.03%

3.26%

1973

62.94%

23.69%

9.02%

0.002%

0.00142%

0.03%

4.31%

1974

63.25%

23.02%

8.99%

0.00080%

0.02%

4.71%

1975

63.82%

24.46%

5.73%

0.03%

0.02%

5.94%

Source:

Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"

Malt usage has bottomed out at around 63%. While corn rose to almost 28%, before falling back to 24%, just a little higher than in 1955. Rice is all over the place and shows no real trend. Sorghum, soya and unmalted wheat and barley are only used in tiny amounts. Sugar hovered around 2% then shot up to almost 6% in 1975.

Now let’s look at those figures in pounds per barrel:

Materials used in brewing in the USA 1955 - 1975
(lbs/brl.)

Year

Malt

Corn
and corn products

Rice

Wheat

Barley

Sorghum
grains and sorghum products

Soybeans
and soybean prods.

sugar
and syrups

other
materials

total

1955

29.3

10.2

4.2

0.06

0.004

—

0.02

1.2

—

44.98

1956

29.2

9.6

4.7

0.04

0.0001

0.0004

0.01

1.2

—

44.75

1957

29.1

10.5

3.9

0.02

—

—

0.01

1.1

—

44.63

1958

29

10.7

3.8

0.02

0.006

0.007

0.01

1.1

—

44.64

1959

28.7

11.1

3.6

0.02

—

0.002

0.01

1

—

44.43

1960

28.5

11.2

3.7

0.02

—

0.0005

0.02

1

—

44.44

1961

28.4

11.1

3.7

0.01

—

0.0002

0.02

1.1

—

44.33

1962

28.2

11.2

3.5

0.01

—

0.0006

0.02

1.3

—

44.23

1963

28

11.8

3

0.006

0.0001

0.00005

0.02

1.2

0.0002

44.03

1964

28

12.3

2.7

0.006

—

0.03

0.02

1

0.005

44.06

1965

27.9

12.3

2.9

0.005

—

0.03

0.02

0.9

0.001

44.06

1966

27.5

12

3.1

0.004

—

—

0.01

0.9

0.0000

43.51

1967

28.1

11.8

3.3

0.003

—

0.1

0.01

0.9

—

44.21

1968

28.2

11.1

3.4

0.003

0.00001

0.35

0.01

1

—

44.06

1969

28

10.9

3.4

0.002

0.00005

0.35

0.01

1.2

0.05

43.91

1970

27.6

10.8

3.8

0.002

0.02

0.11

0.01

1.5

0.05

43.89

1971

27.4

10.9

3.7

0.001

0.0007

0.007

0.02

1.6

—

43.63

1972

27.5

10.8

3.8

0.001

0.0006

0.006

0.01

1.4

—

43.52

1973

27.3

10.3

3.9

0.0008

0.0006

—

0.01

1.9

—

43.41

1974

27.2

9.9

3.9

—

0.0003

—

0.01

2

—

43.01

1975

26.8

10.3

3.7

—

0.01

—

0.01

2.5

—

43.32

Source:

Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"

There’s a small decline in the amount of fermentable materials per barrel, presumably reflecting a small decline in average gravity. Something like this:

Year

estimated average
OG

1955

1046.20

1956

1045.96

1957

1045.83

1958

1045.85

1959

1045.63

1960

1045.64

1961

1045.53

1962

1045.42

1963

1045.21

1964

1045.25

1965

1045.24

1966

1044.69

1967

1045.41

1968

1045.25

1969

1045.10

1970

1045.08

1971

1044.81

1972

1044.69

1973

1044.58

1974

1044.17

1975

1044.49

Hops next:

Hop usage in the USA 1955 - 1975

Year

hops
lbs

hops
lbs./ bbl.

1955

33,736,717

0.38

1956

32,938,442

0.36

1957

31,732,968

0.35

1958

30,419,008

0.34

1959

29,642,566

0.33

1960

30,825,243

0.33

1961

29,473,204

0.32

1962

29,896,445

0.31

1963

30,343,524

0.31

1964

30,446,822

0.30

1965

31,562,258

0.29

1966

31,054,401

0.28

1967

30,744,728

0.26

1968

29,231,847

0.25

1969

28,719,722

0.23

1970

38,195,191

0.23

1971

32,135,040

0.24

1972

33,467,886

0.24

1973

34,523,123

0.24

1974

36,777,733

0.24

1975

35,532,533

0.21

Source:

Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"

Despite beer output almost doubling in this period, the quantity of hops only slightly increased. Which translates to an almost halving of the pounds per barrel. 0.21 pounds is, er, eff all.